The Constitutional Court opened proceedings in the case regarding the rules of qualification assessment: panel or plenary composition

The panel of judges of the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine adopted an important ruling — opened constitutional proceedings on the complaint of judge Oleksiy Honcharenko. This decision was a response to an acute legal conflict provoked by a sharp change in the position of the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber regarding qualification assessment procedures.

The judicial community expects that the CCU will put an end to the practice of "double standards" and protect the fundamental principles of legal certainty, which have been threatened by conflicting interpretations of Article 88 of the Law "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges."

The key question is who exactly in the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) has the right to make the final decision regarding a judge when there is a negative conclusion from the Public Integrity Council — a panel of three members or the plenary composition of the Commission. The answer to this question determines the fate of hundreds of judicial careers and the further course of judicial reform.

After the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber made an unexpected "turnaround" in its practice at the beginning of 2026, effectively legitimizing plenary reviews "retroactively," judge Oleksiy Honcharenko of the Mezhivskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk region appealed to the CCU for protection. His complaint questions the constitutionality of the norms that allow free interpretation of procedures, threatening the independence of the entire judiciary branch.

The 2016 judicial reform established a special procedure for assessing judges, appointed to carry it out. The mechanism was enshrined in paragraph 20 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges." According to this model, the final decision in the qualification assessment procedure was to be made by the panel of the HQCJ, while the direct assessment was carried out by the plenary compositions of the Commission.

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber in case No. 9901/198/20 took a position defending the principle of the rule of law, forming an approach that effectively determined the further practice of judges' assessment. The dispute concerned judge Vitaliy Usatyi of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv region, against whom the Public Integrity Council issued a negative conclusion due to questions about the origin of assets. Despite this, the HQCJ panel of three members recognized the judge as compliant with the position held.

The Grand Chamber concluded that until December 30, 2023, the current legislation did not require a plenary decision of the HQCJ to overcome a negative conclusion of the Public Integrity Council in the assessment procedure of sitting judges. Therefore, such powers remained exclusively with the panel.

This approach effectively enshrined a mandatory interpretation of the Transitional Provisions and excluded the possibility of their broad interpretation. The decision received support from part of the legal community, scholars, and representatives of judicial self-government as one that ensures procedural certainty and stability in the application of judicial reform.

However, if in June 2024 the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber concluded that until the end of 2023 the final decision on the results of the assessment was to be made by the HQCJ panel regardless of the Public Integrity Council's conclusion, then in January 2026 the Court by ruling No. 990/62/24 effectively revised this approach.

In this case, the Grand Chamber stated that in the presence of a negative conclusion from the Public Integrity Council, the decision on the judge's compliance with the position must be supported by at least 11 members of the full HQCJ composition. The new approach questioned the established practice of qualification assessment and created legal uncertainty for hundreds of judges who have already undergone assessment by the Commission's panels.

Constitutional claims

Appealing to the CCU, Oleksiy Honcharenko pointed out that the interpretation applied by the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber of the second paragraph of part one of Article 88 of the Law contradicts several constitutional provisions.

The law must be predictable. A judge cannot be in a state of "indefinite review" when the rules of the game change after the procedure is completed.

The situation where the decision of only four members of the HQCJ (in case 11 votes are not reached in the Plenum) can lead to the dismissal of a judge narrows the guarantees of his status.

Temporal norms of the Constitution cannot operate for decades, effectively replacing permanent principles of justice.

Selective justice

The change in the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber's position led to obvious discrimination within the judicial corps. One group of judges received protection and remained in office by panel decisions, while another — under similar legal conditions — is now subject to repeated plenary reviews and potential dismissal.

The European Court of Human Rights decision "Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine" indicates a prohibition on reforming the system by creating special conditions for dismissing specific individuals through arbitrary interpretation of norms. The Supreme Court's Grand Chamber ruling of January 15, 2026, is regarded by the professional community as a result of pressure and a choice of political interests instead of the rule of law.

Expectations from the Constitutional Court

The judicial community places great hopes on this proceeding, expecting the CCU to stop manipulations with assessments. An important aspect is the possibility of applying part 3 of Article 89 of the Law "On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine".

According to this provision, if the CCU recognizes Article 88 itself as constitutional, it can still indicate in the operative part that the interpretation given by the court (in this case, the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber) does not comply with the Constitution. This will allow correcting law enforcement practice without repealing the law itself.

The question before the CCU goes far beyond the personal case of one judge. It is a test of the state's ability to adhere to the principle of res judicata and respect the stability of a person's legal status.

The CCU must assess whether it is lawful to combine procedures of different nature, namely competitive and compliance assessment, which effectively nullified the exceptional role of transitional norms.

If the Constitutional Court supports the complainant's position, it will lead to the restoration of legal certainty for hundreds of judges whose careers are currently under threat due to double assessment of the same facts.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.